Unfortunately, we keep seeing more and more reasons to start defensive-patenting. Against the "hacker's ethic"? Perhaps. But until patent law is fixed (or abolished), this may be the only option. Until the laws change, we will just have to use the existing laws to our advantage.
Was RT-Linux's status as prior art not sufficient to keep RT-Linux free from other patent claims?
Do we really need to ask this question? We've already seen numerous cases where prior-art is ignored. It seems to be getting to the point where one actually needs a patent to prove prior art.
That said, I think we need to see how this patent is used before judging this patent. The *BSD and Hurd question is a good start. Do we treat those who support the Opensource/Free-Software community get to use it freely (as in both speach and beer). Do those companies and organizations that hold software patents get to use it: 1) no strings attached? 2) for a small fee? 3) only if they "open" some of their software patents as well?
The RIAA does NOT own any rights to the MP3 format. Period. Actually, no one does. It's an open format. The RIAA's complaint is that this format is destroying thier obscene profit margins.
It also lets you selectively allow cookies from some sites. It also lets you change the "type of browser" which is sent to web sites. It also lets you change your "referer" tag (which can be used by web sites to determine what the last site you visited was).
"Wow, where do you find programmers like that, most of the ones I've ever worked with would have absolute screaming fits if you ever dared to mention coding style standards... "
Then they would be fireed where I work...
"The majority of programmers re-write any other programmer's code to meet their style aesthestics, it's the first thing they do."
How do your configuration management people keep track of changes when a diff shows 90% of the file has changed, and it turns out that it was because some prick re-indened the file?
"The real fun comes when it's time to enforce standards, you get the 'it works, if you dont like my code, fix it yourself' attitude."
We created coding standards up-front. Code that does not meet the coding standards will NOT make it through the code review. It is then the job of the enginer that wrote the code to fix it before it will be included in the baseline. In short, code is assumed to be broken until it makes it through review. Code that fails the standards is broken by denfinition. Period.
"Maybe I've just worked with prima-donnas, but they were productive coders, with the exception of a few who obfuscated to hide incompetance."
They wouldn't have been able to hide their incompetance if they followed coding standards. Besides that, it almost sounds as though these coders never had their code reviewed by their peers. We do. Every line. That's part of the reason for coding standards. I'm a firm believer in peer review. As such, I believe in coding standards. If nothing else, they make per reviews easier, since everyone is familiar with the coding style.
Just like the subject says. If you HAD spent any time there, you would realise how valuable the site is. Let's get something straight: If a newbie wants help, he/she is best served by going to a general-purpose linux mailing list, news group or bulliten board. I use all three of these sources and it is QUITE obvious that most users of these lists are newbies themselves. Look at the linux-newbie and debian-user mailing lists for good examples. So the model of newbies helping newbies is is actually the *dominant* model for linux support. And this isn't a bad thing! I constantly post to these groups both to get help and receive help. I have been using Linux for 4 years, and in that time *every* *general* *purpose* *Linux* *support* *source* has used this model. Because it works. LinuxNewbie.org is no exception. The gurus generally don't have the time or patience to answer these questions. Newbies do. Newbie A knows how to get their SB Pro working under Linux. Newbie B can get their mcd CDROM working. They can trade their knowledge to solve each-others problem. This is the principle behind most linux support sites. LinuxNewbie.org provides a conveinent place to do so. Why in God's name would someone who already knows everything about Linux hang out on a newbie site? The only incentive for doing so is to learn something.
Why don't you go to LinuxNewbie.org, and follow a goddammed thread or two? You'll then realize how valuable a tool it is.
You're not aiding a crime unless you know I was doing something illegal. Now, if you had an account on that system, (for, say, $50 a month), and you gave me your password, and login name, THAT might be illegal.
Isn't the FSF a non-profit orginization? If so, I would think you could make a Tax-deductable donation. One certainly doesn't need to be donating to a church to get the tax-break.
There are already VESA standard modes listed in the Section "Generic Vido Modes", of _Configuring XFree86_ on the xfree website.
X is fexible in that you can use modes that are BETTER (higher refresh rates, better resolution), or simply DIFFERENT than the VESA standard modes. You can still use VESA modes, however, if you wish.
And most tool that generate XF86Config files (xf86config, XF86Setup, Xconfigurator, etc.) include the VESA modes in their output (the XF86Config file).
So X lets you use VESA modes. But it doesn't force you to use them. Good thing too, since the last time I checked, the VESA standard modes didn't include a 1600x1200 mode.
Could some kind soul please explain... 1) What is RSAREF? 1a) Is RSAREF only required if you use the RSA encription algorithm? 1b) Can one use ssh (or OpenSSH) without RSA? Is this preferable? 2) Is it legal to use ssh without REFRSA in the US?
Actually, can anyone who has one of these give a (quick) review? I have a wheelmouse (M$ Intellipoint), and am considering dumping it for one of these. Is it worth the $$? Am I going to blow $55US, and end up hating it?
Oh, and I also want GEB - 20th Aniversery edition. Hardcover, of course.
The point of the test, as I see it (stated at the begining) is not "How can technology make the world a better place?". Rather, it is "Do we need thousands of laws to solve the following 11 problems, or can they be solved through application of these 7 technologies?". The test is to figure out how to solve those problems with the given technologies. The purpose of the test is so whoever takes it will realize that legislation is NOT the best way to solve every problem that arises.
linuxconf is the reason I switched from Redhat to Debian. It's not as simple as "don't use linuxconf if you don't like it". Redhat's initialization scripts are written around linuxconf, and if you don't want to use it you really have to jump through hoops to get around it. I spent a lot of time hacking the Redhat init scripts in 5.2 because linuxconf makes to (poor) assumption that dhcpcd is the only DHCP client deamon around (I use dhclient from ISC). Then an upgrade wiped everything out, since the init script RPMs did NOT consider network startup scripts to be configuration files! Debian packages dont't make this mistake.
Not trying to start a holy war here! I like Redhat otherwise! I just don't like the way the init scripts assume the use of linuxconf, which itself is set up to assume the use of other programs. These tangled inter-dependencies seem to go against the whole "modular-system" paradigm. seems awfully M$ish.
Almost analogous to the Phone companies: as soon as they were broken up, we saw a drop in research that had little-to-no short-term gain. In order for company in this situation to perform ANY research, the benefit must be obvious. Many gains made in the 50's in data compression and error correction weren't (very) applicable at the time. But Ma Bell funded it because they COULD. That kind of thing just isn't done any more. Research for research's sake. And you won't see private space companies doing that. We need NASA to do it. I think it would be best if NASA were to concentrate on research, and outsourcing, as you have suggested, launches from private companies. Much the way the military works. The only problem is that tax dollars would be going to R&D which, although it would benefit "mankind", would be filling the pockets of these private companies. In short, they'd be making a profit from Joe Taxpayer. Perhaps the private companies should pay NASA back by providing them with a certain number or percentage of launch-resources.
Note, When I say Linux, below, I mean the complete Linux system, apps and all, not just the kernel.
The things that make Linux, well, Linux are:
1) Openness 2) Compliance to "open" standards. 3) The ability for users (admin-level) to modify damn-near every aspect of the system at the lowest levels (including kernel-level modifications). 4) Choice (if you don't like this shell? use another. Don't like this Window Manager? use another. Don't like the current choices? Write your own!) 5) Create a powerful, stable, multi-tasking, multi-user system.
The author of this article seems to believe that "usability" is the most importaint goal. I agree that it's importaint. However: * The author suggests that (1) and (5) are as importaint as usability. * and goes further to say that (3) and (4) are actually *BAD*.
Look, usability is importaint, but following the author's advice would mean a complete 180 degree turn in the Linux philosophy. That being the case, mabye Linux isn't for you. If you want an OS without a choice of GUI's and without a CLI, Linux is clearly not for you.
I suppose a good analogy to this article would be: That car you folks created is nice, but it's too complicated to use. you need to remove two of the tires (4 is way too confusing), replace the engine with something simpler, like a chain and 2 gears, and get rid of that complicated climate control doo-hickey, cause the average user wants fresh air. Just by a bicycle. Or in this case: Windows
You're right about one thing: NT isn't designed to be a secure system. However, Microsoft continually advertizes it as such. Also, cDc has also Notifies Microsoft, PRIOR to releasing the origiinal BO. Microsoft continually ignored them. They went to the press. Microsoft basicly called them liars, saying that their OS was secure, and that it was impossible for anyone to do what cDc said they could do. Releasing BO was the only way to make MS own up to the problems in their OS. And they *STILL* downplay it. Finally: Yes dozens (not hundreds) of Unix exploits are discovered each week. But each week, dozens of fixes/patches/updates are released. Remember that attack that was discovered in the linux kernel a month or so ago? How fast was a patch released? within Hours. How often does MS release security fixes for URGENT security holes? Why does BO still work one year later? Why does MS CHARGE for upgrades that fix security problems? cDc doesn't have to write a BO for Unix. The Open Source/Free Software community already handles security concerns responsibly. MS clearly doesn't, and BO offers consumers the best chance of forcing MS to handle security problems responsibly. They certainly aren't doing that now.
Slashdot Mirror
Unfortunately, we keep seeing more and more reasons to start defensive-patenting.
Against the "hacker's ethic"? Perhaps. But until patent law is fixed (or abolished), this may be the only option. Until the laws change, we will just have to use the existing laws to our advantage.
Was RT-Linux's status as prior art not sufficient to keep RT-Linux free from other patent claims?
Do we really need to ask this question? We've already seen numerous cases where prior-art is ignored. It seems to be getting to the point where one actually needs a patent to prove prior art.
That said, I think we need to see how this patent is used before judging this patent. The *BSD and Hurd question is a good start. Do we treat those who support the Opensource/Free-Software community get to use it freely (as in both speach and beer). Do those companies and organizations that hold software patents get to use it:
1) no strings attached?
2) for a small fee?
3) only if they "open" some of their software patents as well?
The RIAA does NOT own any rights to the MP3 format. Period. Actually, no one does. It's an open format. The RIAA's complaint is that this format is destroying thier obscene profit margins.
It also lets you selectively allow cookies from some sites.
It also lets you change the "type of browser" which is sent to web sites.
It also lets you change your "referer" tag (which can be used by web sites to determine what the last site you visited was).
Cool little app!
"Wow, where do you find programmers like that, most of the ones I've ever worked with would have absolute screaming fits if you ever dared to mention coding style standards... "
Then they would be fireed where I work...
"The majority of programmers re-write any other programmer's code to meet their style aesthestics, it's the first thing they do."
How do your configuration management people keep track of changes when a diff shows 90% of the file has changed, and it turns out that it was because some prick re-indened the file?
"The real fun comes when it's time to enforce standards, you get the 'it works, if you dont like my code, fix it yourself' attitude."
We created coding standards up-front. Code that does not meet the coding standards will NOT make it through the code review. It is then the job of the enginer that wrote the code to fix it before it will be included in the baseline. In short, code is assumed to be broken until it makes it through review. Code that fails the standards is broken by denfinition. Period.
"Maybe I've just worked with prima-donnas, but they were productive coders, with the exception of a few who obfuscated to hide incompetance."
They wouldn't have been able to hide their incompetance if they followed coding standards. Besides that, it almost sounds as though these coders never had their code reviewed by their peers. We do. Every line. That's part of the reason for coding standards. I'm a firm believer in peer review. As such, I believe in coding standards. If nothing else, they make per reviews easier, since everyone is familiar with the coding style.
Just like the subject says. If you HAD spent any time there, you would realise how valuable the site is.
Let's get something straight: If a newbie wants help, he/she is best served by going to a general-purpose linux mailing list, news group or bulliten board. I use all three of these sources and it is QUITE obvious that most users of these lists are newbies themselves. Look at the linux-newbie and debian-user mailing lists for good examples. So the model of newbies helping newbies is is actually the *dominant* model for linux support. And this isn't a bad thing! I constantly post to these groups both to get help and receive help. I have been using Linux for 4 years, and in that time *every* *general* *purpose* *Linux* *support* *source* has used this model. Because it works. LinuxNewbie.org is no exception. The gurus generally don't have the time or patience to answer these questions. Newbies do. Newbie A knows how to get their SB Pro working under Linux. Newbie B can get their mcd CDROM working. They can trade their knowledge to solve each-others problem. This is the principle behind most linux support sites. LinuxNewbie.org provides a conveinent place to do so. Why in God's name would someone who already knows everything about Linux hang out on a newbie site? The only incentive for doing so is to learn something.
Why don't you go to LinuxNewbie.org, and follow a goddammed thread or two? You'll then realize how valuable a tool it is.
You're not aiding a crime unless you know I was doing something illegal. Now, if you had an account on that system, (for, say, $50 a month), and you gave me your password, and login name, THAT might be illegal.
Isn't the FSF a non-profit orginization? If so, I would think you could make a Tax-deductable donation. One certainly doesn't need to be donating to a church to get the tax-break.
There are already VESA standard modes listed in the Section "Generic Vido Modes", of _Configuring XFree86_ on the xfree website.
X is fexible in that you can use modes that are BETTER (higher refresh rates, better resolution), or simply DIFFERENT than the VESA standard modes. You can still use VESA modes, however, if you wish.
And most tool that generate XF86Config files (xf86config, XF86Setup, Xconfigurator, etc.) include the VESA modes in their output (the XF86Config file).
So X lets you use VESA modes. But it doesn't force you to use them. Good thing too, since the last time I checked, the VESA standard modes didn't include a 1600x1200 mode.
Could some kind soul please explain...
1) What is RSAREF?
1a) Is RSAREF only required if you use the RSA encription algorithm?
1b) Can one use ssh (or OpenSSH) without RSA? Is this preferable?
2) Is it legal to use ssh without REFRSA in the US?
Thanks
Actually, can anyone who has one of these give a (quick) review? I have a wheelmouse (M$ Intellipoint), and am considering dumping it for one of these. Is it worth the $$? Am I going to blow $55US, and end up hating it?
Oh, and I also want GEB - 20th Aniversery edition. Hardcover, of course.
The point of the test, as I see it (stated at the begining) is not "How can technology make the world a better place?". Rather, it is "Do we need thousands of laws to solve the following 11 problems, or can they be solved through application of these 7 technologies?". The test is to figure out how to solve those problems with the given technologies. The purpose of the test is so whoever takes it will realize that legislation is NOT the best way to solve every problem that arises.
linuxconf is the reason I switched from Redhat to Debian. It's not as simple as "don't use linuxconf if you don't like it". Redhat's initialization scripts are written around linuxconf, and if you don't want to use it you really have to jump through hoops to get around it. I spent a lot of time hacking the Redhat init scripts in 5.2 because linuxconf makes to (poor) assumption that dhcpcd is the only DHCP client deamon around (I use dhclient from ISC). Then an upgrade wiped everything out, since the init script RPMs did NOT consider network startup scripts to be configuration files! Debian packages dont't make this mistake.
Not trying to start a holy war here! I like Redhat otherwise! I just don't like the way the init scripts assume the use of linuxconf, which itself is set up to assume the use of other programs. These tangled inter-dependencies seem to go against the whole "modular-system" paradigm.
seems awfully M$ish.
http://www.beowulf.org
Almost analogous to the Phone companies: as soon as they were broken up, we saw a drop in research that had little-to-no short-term gain. In order for company in this situation to perform ANY research, the benefit must be obvious. Many gains made in the 50's in data compression and error correction weren't (very) applicable at the time. But Ma Bell funded it because they COULD. That kind of thing just isn't done any more. Research for research's sake. And you won't see private space companies doing that. We need NASA to do it. I think it would be best if NASA were to concentrate on research, and outsourcing, as you have suggested, launches from private companies. Much the way the military works. The only problem is that tax dollars would be going to R&D which, although it would benefit "mankind", would be filling the pockets of these private companies. In short, they'd be making a profit from Joe Taxpayer. Perhaps the private companies should pay NASA back by providing them with a certain number or percentage of launch-resources.
Note, When I say Linux, below, I mean the complete Linux system, apps and all, not just the kernel.
The things that make Linux, well, Linux are:
1) Openness
2) Compliance to "open" standards.
3) The ability for users (admin-level) to modify damn-near every aspect of the system at the lowest levels (including kernel-level modifications).
4) Choice (if you don't like this shell? use another. Don't like this Window Manager? use another. Don't like the current choices? Write your own!)
5) Create a powerful, stable, multi-tasking, multi-user system.
The author of this article seems to believe that "usability" is the most importaint goal. I agree that it's importaint. However:
* The author suggests that (1) and (5) are as importaint as usability.
* and goes further to say that (3) and (4) are actually *BAD*.
Look, usability is importaint, but following the author's advice would mean a complete 180 degree turn in the Linux philosophy. That being the case, mabye Linux isn't for you. If you want an OS without a choice of GUI's and without a CLI, Linux is clearly not for you.
I suppose a good analogy to this article would be:
That car you folks created is nice, but it's too complicated to use. you need to remove two of the tires (4 is way too confusing), replace the engine with something simpler, like a chain and 2 gears, and get rid of that complicated climate control doo-hickey, cause the average user wants fresh air.
Just by a bicycle.
Or in this case: Windows
You're right about one thing: NT isn't designed to be a secure system. However, Microsoft continually advertizes it as such.
Also, cDc has also Notifies Microsoft, PRIOR to releasing the origiinal BO. Microsoft continually ignored them. They went to the press. Microsoft basicly called them liars, saying that their OS was secure, and that it was impossible for anyone to do what cDc said they could do.
Releasing BO was the only way to make MS own up to the problems in their OS. And they *STILL* downplay it.
Finally: Yes dozens (not hundreds) of Unix exploits are discovered each week. But each week, dozens of fixes/patches/updates are released. Remember that attack that was discovered in the linux kernel a month or so ago? How fast was a patch released? within Hours. How often does MS release security fixes for URGENT security holes? Why does BO still work one year later? Why does MS CHARGE for upgrades that fix security problems? cDc doesn't have to write a BO for Unix. The Open Source/Free Software community already handles security concerns responsibly. MS clearly doesn't, and BO offers consumers the best chance of forcing MS to handle security problems responsibly. They certainly aren't doing that now.